This is starting to look like a multipolar world with India far weakened the only countries that can influence the world significantly seems to be the USA, the soviets, communist china and the Portuguese and with the soviets lagging behind economically I think by the 2010 we will see a 3 way battle for influence between Lisbon, Beijing, and washington
The Soviets are spending themselves dry far more so than OTL and have less opportunity to recoup loses from Europe with both France and Portugal being energy self-sufficient and Norway soon to start producing oil as well. China is not going to be able monopolize manufacturing to any great extent TTL. The Middle East would be dealing with more aggressive and less restrained opponents in both Israel and Europe so that might either force a lid on the saber rattling or even more instability.

There'll be a lot of interwining among the US, EU, the Federation along with their allies, Commonwealths/Community and IEC. There's always the chance that the Soviets might realize early on that they can't economically compete with the capitalists and focus inward but it's unlikely.

An unlikely scenario would if eventually a democratize Federation joined the EU, it and France's non-European territory might force the EU to expand past Europe opening the door for the British and Lusitanian Commonwealth. That hypothetical EU would be the sole Hyperpower and biggest trading block of the world.
 
The Soviets are spending themselves dry far more so than OTL and have less opportunity to recoup loses from Europe with both France and Portugal being energy self-sufficient and Norway soon to start producing oil as well. China is not going to be able monopolize manufacturing to any great extent TTL. The Middle East would be dealing with more aggressive and less restrained opponents in both Israel and Europe so that might either force a lid on the saber rattling or even more instability.

There'll be a lot of interwining among the US, EU, the Federation along with their allies, Commonwealths/Community and IEC. There's always the chance that the Soviets might realize early on that they can't economically compete with the capitalists and focus inward but it's unlikely.

An unlikely scenario would if eventually a democratize Federation joined the EU, it and France's non-European territory might force the EU to expand past Europe opening the door for the British and Lusitanian Commonwealth. That hypothetical EU would be the sole Hyperpower and biggest trading block of the world.
Isn't the federation already a democracy? Yes they have a king but it's more like the UK being a representative figure they already have elections and besides the EU is highly critical of federation overseas territory I doubt the Portuguese would want to join the EU and leave their lusitanian commonwealth they are already doing fine with south America, a chunk of Africa, south india, and a bit of asia
 

Lusitania

Donor
Interesting how likely hundreds of economists over decades didn't realise that obviously false numbers were in fact, false.

It was interesting that companies could and did under report the value of their sales. Something that did lead to reforms.
So wanted to clarify, the 15% statistic quoted by me was one used extensively by Economists during the 1970s to reference the total impact of Portuguese-British trade. When it was broken down it actually included British-Portuguese military collaboration which included naval and airplanes plus electronics. Ironically it was this one that was targeted first.

The amount also included the overall impact on service industry impacted by closures and cutbacks.

lastly was the under reporting of values which was widespread. Iotl this happens all the time with technology and software where companies “under reporting” the value of their service and software and then realize huge profits in lower tax countries. The falsifying of sales and exports were only a small fraction of the infractions and not widespread.

hope this helps clarify.
 

Lusitania

Donor
This is starting to look like a multipolar world with India far weakened the only countries that can influence the world significantly seems to be the USA, the soviets, communist china and the Portuguese and with the soviets lagging behind economically I think by the 2010 we will see a 3 way battle for influence between Lisbon, Beijing, and washington
While you are correct with multipolar world existing with both Lisbon at head of one of the factions, Washington at head of second but Beijing won’t be the head of third instead it will Moscow. So I won’t go into to much beyond 1970 but just wanted to outline few differences till 1969.
Without Mao communist China had no cultural revolution and instead went ahead with standard communist approach. This will lead to a different communist China in the 1970s where without the excesses and failures of Mao’s policies there will be little support for radical reforms as happen iotl. More on that in the 1970s

Soviet Union has had 3 different leaders during the 1960s. The first fell due inability to stand up to the US during Cuban crises that led to liberation of 3/4 of Cuba The second fell as result of communist failure in Africa and its defeat during Portuguese- African wars of 1967. It then got a very hardline leader and politburo was dominated by hardliners who have acted in reactionary fashion and implemented true communist principles. Economic and political policies and practical situation will clash in the 1970s and some interesting repercussions will arise there but that for later.

The multipolar situation you mention though is the one that allows the Federation to thrive. Where rivalry and continued threat of communism (we have 3 hardcore communist states in Africa) , Soviet influence in Middle East continues to be strong and of course multiple communist countries in the Americas resulted in the US needing greater allies which suited the Federation. Even communist China while an adversary of Soviets is still communist and continues to both fund communist insurgents and starting its geo-political foreign policy efforts. Meaning fir a while there are 2 communist players and 2 western players in the world.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how most of the countries and statesmen and historian see Portugal I mean Portugal started as a backwater country in Iberia but in about 50 or more years they already have an economy surpassing england and france
 
I wonder how most of the countries and statesmen and historian see Portugal I mean Portugal started as a backwater country in Iberia but in about 50 or more years they already have an economy surpassing england and france
who would win?
colonial empires from very powerful european nations with proud histories and rivalries throughout the centuries
OR
one lusitanian boi
 

Lusitania

Donor
The Soviets are spending themselves dry far more so than OTL and have less opportunity to recoup loses from Europe with both France and Portugal being energy self-sufficient and Norway soon to start producing oil as well. China is not going to be able monopolize manufacturing to any great extent TTL. The Middle East would be dealing with more aggressive and less restrained opponents in both Israel and Europe so that might either force a lid on the saber rattling or even more instability.
While you are right about the Soviets spending themselves dry and that both France and Federation being a much bigger energy providers but what will be also different is that the Arab nations 1969 oil embargo on European and western nations is both more complete and longer than iOTL that is because the Israeli position of peace treaty before any withdrawal is more adamant and the Arab nations supported by Soviets are adamant on forcing Israel to withdraw from occupied territory with continued border clashes.

While new energy sources such as North Sea, Mexico, Ecuador and Canada will provide some relief they not as cheap as Gulf and will take several years to come to market in meantime the Arab oil countries and west playing chicken who will blink first. The Soviets for all their bravado and hard line need $$ and the fastest way will be selling oil and gas to Europe. This of course will all play out in the 1970s big time. As for saber rattling yes it will be more volatile with Israel much stronger both economically and military facing an angry array of neighbors.

Oh one more thing a united Germany and free Czech republic do mean that there is even more demand for oil in Europe.

As for China, yes as have alluded in previous comments the lack of Mao and his crazy ideas in the 1960s means that PRC is stronger both economically and militarily by 1969 than iOTL but that is strictly as result of PRC developing along communist lines and not experimenting with "hair brain" ideas and undergoing paranoid and arbitrary detentions and oppressions, just standard communist shit. Therefore in the 1970s there be no impetus to implement the reforms of 1970s as seen iOTL. That will mean that manufacturing will be dispersed over wider area. The Southern Indian countries, South East Asia, Africa and Central America will become the primary areas that low cost manufacturing will be directed but even then the low cost saving that we saw in China will not be universally seen. Therefore more manufacturing will stay in Western Industrialized countries. FYI the Federation will also be witnessing this as lower wages in African Commonwealth countries will start attracting companies to expand there as Portuguese wages continue to rise. The challenge will be for the Portuguese to direct, train and promote production of higher value industries so that the country not witness the social upheaval seen iOTL in western industrial countries with the movement of manufacturing to low cost countries such as China.
 

Lusitania

Donor
There'll be a lot of interwining among the US, EU, the Federation along with their allies, Commonwealths/Community and IEC. There's always the chance that the Soviets might realize early on that they can't economically compete with the capitalists and focus inward but it's unlikely.
Iotl the Soviets realized that in the 60-70s they could not provide the same level of standard of living to their citizens as those in west. While there was a whole slew of reasons the main one I think is ideological, the hardliners stayed in power till the 80s when Gorbachev was elected leader but by then it was too late. Which eventually leads to collapse of the Soviet Union. While with PRC we had Mao with his cultural Revolution spur an about face in the government with communists advancing capitalism while keeping grips on power.

ITTL we have a reversal of fortunes. Reactionary hardliners come to power in Soviet Union following 1967 debacle in Africa and Middle East. This they argue was because of government growing soft and not following true communist philosophy. Therefore USSR and it’s satellite states both in Europe and Africa reinvigorate their top down control and any sign of dissent is persecuted. The Gulag system doubles in size while they forge ahead with a more ambitious development, military and geopolitical projects which means the shit hits the fan earlier. Leading to a reckoning much sooner and high level of dissatisfaction and subvert resistance. Even a higher than normal oil prices and continued Arab embargo/supply problems only provides the Soviet Union with partial fix and as you indicated possible reactionary power struggle arrises which leads to new Soviet direction possibly in light to the one the PRC undertook during the 1970s iOTL. We could see a variant of Perestroika but more along lines of economic reforms instead of loosening communist controls.
 

Lusitania

Donor
An unlikely scenario would if eventually a democratize Federation joined the EU, it and France's non-European territory might force the EU to expand past Europe opening the door for the British and Lusitanian Commonwealth. That hypothetical EU would be the sole Hyperpower and biggest trading block of the world.
The French "experiment" in the 1960s with keeping several outposts and provinces in Africa tested EEC and its Europe policies. Several historians attributed French actions during the 1960s to the growing weight of rapidly industrializing Germany (a complete united Germany no east and west). It all started because the Portuguese - Moroccan war in late 1950s left it responsible for the enclave of Tangier. At the end of the war French citizens and pro-French Moroccans fled a fast deteriorating anti European situation in Moroccan. They fled to closest havens which in some cases was Portuguese territory or if close enough French Algeria. From Portuguese North Africa they made their way to Tangier and in short order seized control of the territory from Morocco. Shielded from Moroccan reprisal they set about making their territory an extension of France. This of course was completely not what French government wanted and it tried to stop them offering to mediate with Moroccan government for autonomous province but the residents refused. Finally they issued a threat either they accept Tangier become a part of France or they would declare independence while even some advocated joining the Federation. Meanwhile the French government was under immense pressure at home to support the French citizens. The situation continued volatile for few months and mood in Tangier grew angrier. When many of those who had supported rejoining France started speaking that if Paris would reject them then Lisbon would welcome them the mood in Paris changed to one of acceptance and Tangier became a department of France and part of Metropolitan France.

The Tangier situation was closely followed by the French population in Algeria and in early 1960s after De Gaul was assassinated the French in Algeria and their supporters in France set about to partition Algeria. In the west Oran became a bastion of French with all Arabs who not supported the French expelled. While in East the French set about to maintain both control and ownership of Algeria rich oil and gas reserves. During the final years of the war Algeria actually saw over 200,000 French citizens moving to the east to work in the lucrative oil and gas sector. Arabs soon found themselves outnumbered in many areas and huge payments made for their land (many times they were given a choice sell or have the land taken by the government). These Arabs then escorted out of French territory. All of this of course was being done while negotiations were underway with the Algerians demanding independence. The peace was one fraught with danger and continued attacks by those Arabs left inside French territory and from insurgents who snuck across the border. But even so the number of French in French African provinces grew steadily during the 1960s. Bolstered by the exodus of the French citizens and French supporting Africans when the French Community collapsed. More than half of those who fled to France ended up settling in French African provinces bolstering its presence. To say that there was no conflicts between French, Arabs and Blacks in France and French African provinces is wrong but the tensions were less than iOTL and less disruptive than iOTL when millions fled Africa to France.

The expanded France with its predominant African colonies as well as Federation and other countries expressing interest in joining did create a challenge for the EEC who stipulated several principles about any country wishing to join the EEC:
  1. Each country capital and majority territory had to be in Europe
  2. Each country had to have free democratic elections as certified by EEC and UN.
These two principles excluded France from gaining any more territory outside Europe and was the reason that relaunched French Community was technically free of France while in reality especially in the late 1960s and 1970s they were French puppets. But more importantly it also gave the French reason to reject some areas demanding being part of France and allayed the fears of some French officials of French becoming a minority within their own country (like the Portuguese)

As for the Federation both principles excluded it and even if the Federation was to become democracy the first point would exclude it. The EEC economically was challenged by the strong EFTA which by 1969 included the following full members: Federation, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Spain, and Greece. While Israel was an associate state. The EEC membership in 1969 was comprised of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Czech, Belgium, Ireland, Luxemburg, Basque and Catalonia.

The reasons for EEC morphing into EU in the 1990s would not be the same and not receive the same amount of support. Especially with the Comecon still another player in Europe.
 
Would it be possible to see a map of the world? At the very least rough one so we can get a better perspective.
 
The French "experiment" in the 1960s with keeping several outposts and provinces in Africa tested EEC and its Europe policies. Several historians attributed French actions during the 1960s to the growing weight of rapidly industrializing Germany (a complete united Germany no east and west). It all started because the Portuguese - Moroccan war in late 1950s left it responsible for the enclave of Tangier. At the end of the war French citizens and pro-French Moroccans fled a fast deteriorating anti European situation in Moroccan. They fled to closest havens which in some cases was Portuguese territory or if close enough French Algeria. From Portuguese North Africa they made their way to Tangier and in short order seized control of the territory from Morocco. Shielded from Moroccan reprisal they set about making their territory an extension of France. This of course was completely not what French government wanted and it tried to stop them offering to mediate with Moroccan government for autonomous province but the residents refused. Finally they issued a threat either they accept Tangier become a part of France or they would declare independence while even some advocated joining the Federation. Meanwhile the French government was under immense pressure at home to support the French citizens. The situation continued volatile for few months and mood in Tangier grew angrier. When many of those who had supported rejoining France started speaking that if Paris would reject them then Lisbon would welcome them the mood in Paris changed to one of acceptance and Tangier became a department of France and part of Metropolitan France.

The Tangier situation was closely followed by the French population in Algeria and in early 1960s after De Gaul was assassinated the French in Algeria and their supporters in France set about to partition Algeria. In the west Oran became a bastion of French with all Arabs who not supported the French expelled. While in East the French set about to maintain both control and ownership of Algeria rich oil and gas reserves. During the final years of the war Algeria actually saw over 200,000 French citizens moving to the east to work in the lucrative oil and gas sector. Arabs soon found themselves outnumbered in many areas and huge payments made for their land (many times they were given a choice sell or have the land taken by the government). These Arabs then escorted out of French territory. All of this of course was being done while negotiations were underway with the Algerians demanding independence. The peace was one fraught with danger and continued attacks by those Arabs left inside French territory and from insurgents who snuck across the border. But even so the number of French in French African provinces grew steadily during the 1960s. Bolstered by the exodus of the French citizens and French supporting Africans when the French Community collapsed. More than half of those who fled to France ended up settling in French African provinces bolstering its presence. To say that there was no conflicts between French, Arabs and Blacks in France and French African provinces is wrong but the tensions were less than iOTL and less disruptive than iOTL when millions fled Africa to France.

The expanded France with its predominant African colonies as well as Federation and other countries expressing interest in joining did create a challenge for the EEC who stipulated several principles about any country wishing to join the EEC:
  1. Each country capital and majority territory had to be in Europe
  2. Each country had to have free democratic elections as certified by EEC and UN.
These two principles excluded France from gaining any more territory outside Europe and was the reason that relaunched French Community was technically free of France while in reality especially in the late 1960s and 1970s they were French puppets. But more importantly it also gave the French reason to reject some areas demanding being part of France and allayed the fears of some French officials of French becoming a minority within their own country (like the Portuguese)

As for the Federation both principles excluded it and even if the Federation was to become democracy the first point would exclude it. The EEC economically was challenged by the strong EFTA which by 1969 included the following full members: Federation, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Spain, and Greece. While Israel was an associate state. The EEC membership in 1969 was comprised of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Czech, Belgium, Ireland, Luxemburg, Basque and Catalonia.

The reasons for EEC morphing into EU in the 1990s would not be the same and not receive the same amount of support. Especially with the Comecon still another player in Europe.
I think the federation is on a very good footing here they have territory all across the globe with a strong economic and military alliances such as the lusitanian commonwealth and the EFTA they are by all means a superpower since they can project their influence all across the globe with their overseas provinces strong enough economically and militarily that they can defend against countries like china and Russia while having a massive influences on the policies of Africa and south America
 

Lusitania

Donor
aa
Isn't the federation already a democracy? Yes they have a king but it's more like the UK being a representative figure they already have elections and besides the EU is highly critical of federation overseas territory I doubt the Portuguese would want to join the EU and leave their lusitanian commonwealth they are already doing fine with south America, a chunk of Africa, south india, and a bit of asia
These are valid questions and there are a few things mentioned here that I wanted to address

Democracy - while the Federation is a democracy the ranked ballot favors the ruling party, with it gaining enough votes to maintain control of the legislative assembly. But the legislative branch is made up of two equal parts one elected and second appointed and ALL appointed members (8 year terms) are appointed by the ruling party. All legislation must be passed by combined vote of the two legislative branches. The votes from both chambers are added to together to indicated if legislation has been passed. This of course leads us to the executive branch of the government which is not elected and has been under the control of the United Party since 1920s. The Triunvante is made up of the three most powerful members, Prime Minister, Finance Minister and Defense Minister these three leaders are supposed to be representative of the three branches of the country. The Prime Minister is supposed to represent the people and government, the Finance Minister is supposed to represent the business and commerce while the Defense Minister is supposed to represent the military. While today they more likely career diplomats their ministries are still greatly influenced by their areas of interest. Helping them is the cabinet who are responsible to manage the day to day leadership of the government and also technically answer to legislative branch. Lastly we have the court system which are all appointed by the government. But in saying that the government has taken great care to make it "independent" and to deliver justice to all regardless of their origins, class or religion. Their biggest limitation is the laws that are used to persecute individuals. Individuals can be persecuted for a variety of offenses including belonging to banned political movements including those supported by foreign powers.

Few examples:
To have in ones house a book by Karl Marx or other communist author is allowed but to share or distribute such books, pamphlets or other materials from banned political party (communist) is punishable by imprisonment as such act is considered to belong to a banned political party. Therefore these materials must be kept under lock and key for personal reading.

Many aspiring politicians have had their political careers cut short due to being convicted for possession of drugs, drinking while intoxicated or soliciting / sexual assault. Therefore any man or woman who wishes to run in politics especially those for the opposition is rarely ever alone but with a "group" of friends and colleagues to make sure they are not corrupted. Married men/women are never seen dinning or in company of people of opposite sex unless in the company of their spouses to prevent any inappropriate situations. ( A tactic copied by some members of US right wing political establishment)

Territory outside of Europe - this has been one of the most divisive EEC policies and one that many have always attributed to anti Federation sentiment but several leading scholars have claimed that in truth the biggest backers were the French who afraid that the Tangier, Oran and French Algeria would become a flood in which other parts of Africa would demand becoming part of greater France to gain access to EEC. Therefore with that clause the French overseas department would never increase and size of France was secure. Now on to the Federation as seen in the 1980s onward the non-Europeans who represented the majority of the population did become dominant groups but in reality they were as diverse and the country was and there never was a dominant group, it was simply that given the opportunity to belong to all political parties, have access to both military posts and included in business community they reached the upper levels like all people. Since 1980s the majority of government, military and high number of business reflect their ability to climb to power. Therefore Europe and EEC never was important factor that it was for Portugal with all its territory in Europe was.

Geopolitical considerations- you are right the Federation is locked step and step with the commonwealth. The three largest economic powers Federation, Brazil and Argentina plus the 30 plus full member countries along with similar number of associate countries have an economic clout equal to EEC which due to a variety of reasons never grew to both encompass the political and size of the EEC/EU of iTOL. Only Spain and Greece left EFTA in the 1980s after they became democracies but both countries are considered two of the poorest countries in the EEC. This is of course due to COMECON still being relevant. So Europe is divided into three camps with the EEC/EFTA ties (economics) being strong.

As for Americas it too is a divided camp as the three communist countries allow the two other major camps USA-West and Commonwealth to work together to limit destructive influence of the narco-communist countries. In Africa the French-French Community/Federation-Commonwealth control majority of the continent. Aligned against them is the Communist Pan African countries and the Egypt/Arab Federation. The Americans - British are deeply entrenched in Ghana, Nigeria, Natal and Kenya.

While in Asia the commonwealth provided Indian and South East Asian countries with an attractive alternative / opportunity to link their economies. Bali, Lombok, Malacca Federation as full members and National China along with several Indian states as associate members showed the benefits of joining and several more joined as either full members or associate.

Therefore Federation especially after 1970 had little to no need or desire to join the EEC and Europe was only one of the important markets and areas it was involved but not by far its only preoccupation. When in reality due to Europe's stability it was a region it at times did not concentrate on with geopolitical hot points in Africa, Americas and Asia dominating its attention. Not that those areas did not also preoccupy European agenda too.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Wait what I I thought that's the Europeans being biased and hypocritical
Well the Europeans were on the defensive especially in the late 1950s and 1960s as Europe and EEC responded to the dual threat of French expansion in Africa and Federation both of which in many peoples minds in the 1950s and 1960s had the potential to disrupt the social and economic order. The main European economies were part of EEC and they did not want to be "overwhelmed" with issues and problems of developing the countries outside Europe. The EEC was created to both facilitate economic actions and also to unify the European countries "economically" so that another war would not occur. The threat of expansion into Africa and Asia was real with the dual situations of France and Federation. There was also major concern regarding the integrity of Europe. Several Philosophers such as Jose Gil singled out overt racism as the predominant reason for the EEC principles. He argued that for all the talk about acceptance Europe outside the Federation was unwilling to accept the responsibility of helping many developing countries. While Jose Gil was critic of the Estado Novo for its lack of freedoms he gave it credit for its work in integrating all non-Europeans into the general society and systemically dismantling the many barriers to their rise to power and equality. Something he stated took Europe decades to do and only because those not of European descent represented such a small minority. France the country most affected by migration of Africans and Arabs only started reforming its institutions and power system in the 1980s under the Socialists after paying lip service to it for decades.

The EEC has changed very little in terms of worker mobility during the last 50 years. While great strides were made to implement universal standards for a variety of industries allowing manufacture of common products for majority of countries in the EEC and EFTA. Federation has its own standard which has been copied by majority of Commonwealth countries. Worker mobility is still something heavily regulated and while there are many side agreements between many countries allot of barriers still exist and movement made very difficult for non-citizens with emigrants mostly restricted to the country residency.

Much has been written about the inability of EEC in modifying its two principles when much of the EEC has been modernized with time but those two points have stayed true. The two EEC countries with the largest non-European % France and Britain have struggled to integrate its non-European population into society. France with the largest percentage 35% has done the most and while its borders have not changed since 1967 it continued to control French community countries militarily as well as economically and the continued linkage between France and French Community has led many within the EEC to criticize France for valuing its link to French Community over its link to the EEC. This criticism continued to grow prompting the French government in 1992 to leak news that France was in negotiations to join Commonwealth and not just as a associate member. The news sent shock waves in Europe and criticism of France especially by other European governments decreased substantially. In 1996 France along with French Community did join as Associate members.

The British economy entered a long period of growth with election of Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher in the mid 1970s and by 1980s was witnessing a labor shortage due to the great British Migration of the 1965-1975 in which over 1 million British citizens had left as result of British depression (Canada, Australia, US and Federation/Commonwealth being the primary destinations). The British government lifted majority of the immigration restriction implemented by the previous labor government and during the 1980s hundreds of thousands of East Asians and Africans from British commonwealth as well as Europeans from less prosperous EEC (Spain and Greece) emigrated to UK. The country unprepared for such large influx of emigrants who overwhelmed the smaller ethnic communities that had existed in the country. The country struggled for decades trying to incorporate the new communities.

The rest of the EEC and some EFTA countries only had to deal with small number non-Europeans (exception with the Netherlands) and were able to easily state they were a land of inclusion but as the 1990s arrived and the number of refugees circling Europe grew the walls grew and exclusions increased.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I wonder how most of the countries and statesmen and historian see Portugal I mean Portugal started as a backwater country in Iberia but in about 50 or more years they already have an economy surpassing england and france
The world view of Portugal and then Federation is one that took decades to catch up to reality.

For example take Brazil and Brazilian public. They marveled or were surprised news stories about Portuguese companies supplanting Brazilian companies or Portuguese economy equaling Brazil economy but majority doubted the information. Even Brazilian cinema being inundated with Portuguese films did not change Brazilian view that Federation was a great power or even stronger than Brazil. The perception that Portugal / Federation was the poor country which emigrants emigrated from had been ingrained in people and it would take a huge catalyst event to change that. In 1967 the world woke up to news of war and there was even speculation in the streets of Rio and São Paulo about Brazil being forced to accept hundred of thousand of Portuguese refugees. First it was SA and the fall of the white minority government then when Federation steamrolled the two military alliances and detonated nuclear bomb it sent shockwaves through Brazil. The most credible news came from Brazilian journalist and reporters accompanying Brazilian troops embedded with Portuguese forces overrunning and capturing thousand of Zambian forces. That and the parade of captured communist advisors and weapons filled Brazilian television screens and newspapers. People watched in wonderment at news reports of capital after capital being captured. In a short period Brazilians went from disbelief, disdain to one of surprise, interest and for some fear/envy.

in Britain a very similar event happened. But one that the Portuguese had been careful to craft. They had always averted making big announcements about British companies in the Federation. The BBC or other British news organizations carried articles on a regular basis about Portuguese developments or news but they regularly were featured at end of the programs or back of newspapers and not in the conscience of most British citizens. The 1950s and “Federation Experiment” as it was dubbed was not viewed as sustainable especially when other Federation attempts around the Portuguese collapsed and as 1950s turned into 1960s the Portuguese Federation turned into both a wonderment for some but also an evil system that had to be taken down. Some left wing intellectuals viewed the Federation as worse than Soviet Union because they viewed its sole purpose was the continued European exploitation and colonization while Soviet Union was about equality and betterment of all people. As mentioned before there were several articles on left publications showing how Britain had facilitated federation existence and development and only a complete break would cause Federation to collapse. The subsequent British-Federation separation debacle at same time as its victory in Africa and demonstration it was a nuclear power proved the left position correct that Federation was evil but also showed many that it now was too powerful to be taken down by economic means only. But without alternative the British government still went about their plan of divorcing themselves from the Federation. The difference was that the troubles in Britain and the continued move of British business and citizens to Federation and commonwealth no longer was featured in the back pages but was front page news. Anger at British government stupidity and surprise at Federation achievement was the general British mood. The BBC series in 1969 showing the comfortable lives of thousands of British citizens who had migrated to the Federation during the 1950-1960s was “eye opening” for many and embarrassing for the British government which placed a lot of pressure of the BBC to scrap the 10 part series even going as far as threatening to reduce its budget. But it was shown in its entirety.

Europe too had its awakening including Germany but its awakening actually came during the German Chancellor Erhart visit to the Federation and visit to the large German emigrants there. This provided an opportunity for German press to further explain and educate Germans about the Federation and the German people role in helping it develop. The subsequent wars in 1966-1967 further provided proof of Federation rise. While the left was alarmed at Federation feat the majority of Germans were either indiferente or content with the news.

Of course the country in which Portuguese Federation was the biggest paradox was the US. For decades the US government’s disdain for Portugal and Federation had been due to its displeasure at Portuguese unwillingness to heed to American demands and interests. Trade with the Federation were practically non-existent. Agriculture, technology, resources and capital were easily obtained from other sources or produced within the Federation. The 1960s was when US tried first to support regime change then when that failed increase its economic muscle by forcing other countries to cut ties with the Federation. Unfortunately for the Americans the Europeans refused, during Chancellor Erhart visit to Washington he warned president Johnson it risked a great European-American schism if it continued to pursue the path it was on. The Americans fear of Portuguese power came true though in the 1960s when Federation first gained control of Katanga and subsequently Zambia while bringing both Argentina and Chile on board subsequently increasing copper prices by over 50% and worse for western countries the building of several copper smelters increasing employment in the various countries and almost tripling value of their export. But for all the Federation’s diplomatic and economic success it was its defeat of Soviet backed countries in Africa breaking Soviet hold on the continent and simultaneously demonstration of its nuclear capabilities that sent shock waves in Washington and made Americans question all they thought they knew about Federation.

Therefore as the Federation entered new decade it also faced a new phase in its existence. One in which it was now considered both an economic and military rival while at same time a much needed ally in the global fight against communism.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
who would win?
colonial empires from very powerful european nations with proud histories and rivalries throughout the centuries
OR
one lusitanian boi
iOTL Portugal was the last colonial empire to give up its colonies and retreat to Europe. It then joined the rest of European countries in a “Europe” first continental group EEC which absorbed Eastern European countries as fast as they could shed their communist past and establish democracies including the Baltic Nations. This leaving Africa, Asia and rest of world as secondary markets. In some ways it was a way of former colonial countries joining together to heal their wounds.

iTTL we have a country which incorporates its colonies in a way no other European colonial empire could for fear of being absorbed and incorporated into the larger population of its colonies. The unique ability of the Federation is its “limited” democracy which like the Soviet Union was able to limit those not of the old guard to power. This only works for so long and sooner or later the glass ceiling broken or people recognize the lie. more on that in the following decades.

Therefore the Federation without meaning to created its own “EEC” the Lusitania Commonwealth a hybrid EEC/EU. With full members enjoying similar rights and support of EU while you had associate members having similar economic advantages as countries of the EEC.

The interesting thing is the federation and Lusitania Commonwealth have become an important market for EEC countries plus even though Britain has divorced itself from the Federation Europe led by Germany and France who value trade markets and resist any talk of EEC trade disruptions. Even as Britain divorced itself the EEC shut down any talk of following British move. As the debacle in Britain was being witnessed the rest of EEC they shuddered and worked hard to keep all EEC and EFTA trade running smoothly. Meanwhile European companies looked at opportunities.

in 1969 as Britain went through such a difficult time there was anger by government officials and many people affected by loss of business and jobs at the continental European indifference but what hurt the most was the European companies trying to take advantage of British situation.

The country that seemed to be having the hardest time straddling European dream of an united continent and still had dreams of colonial empire with his French Community is France.
 
Last edited:
Top